CMS asked for comments on its Proposed Rule for Stage 2 Meaningful Use, and it got themâ€”1,131 of them, to be exact. While the comments that have drawn media attention are those from major stakeholder organizations, the vast majority of comments were submitted by individualsâ€”and CMS is obligated to read and consider each and every one of them as they formulate the Final Rule.
I thought it would be interesting to see whether the comments from those in the trenchesâ€”those whose everyday lives are impacted by the meaningful use regulationsâ€”are in line with the sentiments expressed by groups like the AMA, AHA, MGMA, EHRA, etc. In a review of the first 25% of the comments by individuals, (over 250 comments), a consensus clearly evolved around a few major points, and the results remained fairly consistent as we read. The graph above illustrates the prevailing sentiments.
- By far, the predominant concern is that the proposed requirements are far too demanding, i.e., the bar is being set too high. An overwhelming 82 of the comments identified the sheer number of measures and components, challenging thresholds, the cost of compliance, and overly aggressive timetablesâ€”even in light of the delay to 2014â€”as being unrealistic.
- On a similar note, another 14 addressed the complexity of the requirements, describing them as difficult to understand, ambiguous, and overly complicated. When combined with the above, approximately 40% of the 250 comments reviewed maintained that the Stage 2 requirements are simply too demanding.
- As anticipated, there was a resounding concern (56 comments) about holding physicians responsible for actions by any third parties over whom they have no real control. Most comments referred to the requirement that patients view or download their charts and communicate to the physician by secure e-mail, but some asked that providers be insulated from any failure by vendors to meet the requirements or the client upgrade schedules.
- The limited relevance for specialists remains an issue in Stage 2, as the program is still viewed as primary-care focused. There were 23 comments that addressed the paucity of meaningful use measures and clinical quality measures that are relevant to specialists, and some went so far as to claim that trying to meet requirements that are geared towards primary care could actually distract specialists from their own priorities and be detrimental to the quality of care they would be able to deliver.
- Some comments addressed the penalties and suggested that the rules provide for a broader range of exemptions and more leeway. The suggestion that the first year of Stage 2 only require 90 days of reportingâ€”which was suggested for other reasons as wellâ€”was supported by providers concerned with the penalties.
- In response to a plea from CMS that people report what they like in the proposal, in addition to what they donâ€™t, some commenters expressed general support for the Stage 2 recommendations, and a small number argued that the barÂ wasn’tÂ raised high enough. Someâ€”likely specialistsâ€”applauded the change in exclusions for reporting of vital signs; several approved of ensuring patient access to their clinical information; and there was support for the proposed harmonization of clinical quality measure reporting under the various government programs (meaningful use and PQRS).
Perhaps what is most interesting about the comments is the emotion and passion behind many of themâ€”whether expressing favorable or unfavorable opinions. If you would like to browse through the public comments yourself, go to www.regulations.gov and enter â€śCMS-2012-0022â€ť in the search bar.
No related posts.